Learning With Generalised Card Representations for “Magic: The Gathering”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A defining feature of collectable card games is the deck building process prior to actual gameplay, in which players form their decks according to some restrictions. Learning to build decks is difficult for players and models alike due to the large card variety and highly complex semantics, as well as requiring meaningful card and deck representations when aiming to utilise AI. In addition, regular releases of new card sets lead to unforeseeable fluctuations in the available card pool, thus affecting possible deck configurations and requiring continuous updates. Previous Game AI approaches to building decks have often been limited to fixed sets of possible cards, which greatly limits their utility in practice. In this work, we explore possible card representations that generalise to unseen cards, thus greatly extending the real-world utility of AI-based deck building for the game “Magic: The Gathering”. We study such representations based on numerical, nominal, and text-based features of cards, card images, and meta information about card usage from third-party services. Our results show that while the particular choice of generalised input representation has little effect on learning to predict human card selections among known cards, the performance on new, unseen cards can be greatly improved. Our generalised model is able to predict $55 \%$ of human choices on completely unseen cards, thus showing a deep understanding of card quality and strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".